User talk:NDV135

Welcome!

Hello, NDV135, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Taxus contorta, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 06:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changes in era style at Fort Ancient against WP:ERA

That's been a BCE article since at least 2010 - I see that last year a new editor added a huge chuck using AD. I presume they weren't aware of WP:ERA. In any case I've restored the established BCE/CE style. All of your edits seem to be BCE/CE to BC/AD and you clearly have some idea of what's expected, so it's disappointing to say the least to see this change. Doug Weller talk 10:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changing ERA styles

Before changing era styles on articles, you may want to check talk pages and their archives for discussions on the matter and not just the original edits to create the page, as you did at Olmecs yesterday. There was a talkpage discussion for that page ten years ago in 2010, consensus was reached to use the BCE style, which was the stable style usage at that page for the article for the preceding 4 years, and has been ever since. WP:ERA does not mandate that a style must be used in perpetuity, that it is set by consensus on the talkpage. Your account seems to be a virtual WP:SPA over this matter, as a majority of your edits follow this pattern, and it's becoming a disruption. He iro 18:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very sorry, I guess I missed that in the archives. Will make sure that I look harder in the future. I had no intent on changing the system on an article that the community had already decided on what system should be used. In fact I thought I was fixing the very mistake I made! Happy that you fixed it. NDV135 (talk) 09:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put it this way - continue as you have been doing and you may be blocked

If you tell anyone else that they must adhere to the original era style, I'll report you to WP:ANI. As I will do if I find you ignoring the bit about "established style" and reverting to the original blindly, as you seem to still being doing. Doug Weller talk 10:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you do end up at ANI, please let me know. Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that I made a mistake on Olmecs and on Fort Ancient since both of those had been changed by community concent, and I messed up, both mistakes are now fixed though. On Akhenaten however no community decision had been reached on making it BCE/CE, and therefore it should not be changed. I made some mistakes, I'm sorry, sometimes everyone does that, but two mistakes do not constitute grounds for threatening me with banning. I have not challenged those who corrected me, nor have I gone and changed them back. I also tend to focus on articles that were changed from BC/AD to BCE/CE because it happens often and no one does anything about it, even though both are considered fine by Wikipedia's manual of style, many other people are looking out for the BCE/CE articles, proven by how quickly my two mistakes were reverted. Maybe I have bias in which articles I protect from chnages that the community didn't agree on, but so do the people who just protect BCE/CE pages. I will be much more careful in the future. NDV135 (talk) 08:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never actually look for changes, but I have thousands of articles on my watch list so I see them fairly often. In fact they are usually BCE/CE to BC/AD, which isn't actually surprising when you think about it. But as I said, I don't specifically look for them, I just look at what changes are made to articles on my watchlist - and revert undiscussed changes either way no matter what my preferences are. Doug Weller talk 09:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've been removing CE from articles saying they are too late to need an era, can you show me where you are doing this for AD?

Because I'm revising my thoughts about waiting to bring you to WP:ANI. Doug Weller talk 10:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could point to your warnings to people changing BC to BCE? There are enough of them. Johnbod (talk) 10:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: you're really accusing me of bad faith? Most of these changes are by IPs, and I try to revert any era changes either way that fails WP:ERA, my last revert was back to BC. It's when someone seems to have a pattern of one-way changes or that look like the result of searches that WP:NPOV issues come up and I comment/warn. I have no objections to articles using BC if that's the established style, even if I prefer BCE. On the other hand, you seem to think that all articles should be BC. Doug Weller talk 08:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly isn't my approach or practice, as I've explained previously to you. Unlike you, I don't think one style is always the best, indeed the only right one, even if many people don't understand it. Johnbod (talk) 11:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will change this dates if I find them, I just haven't really noticed them very much. However making changes to remove unessisary CE's in not against community guidelines, in fact it is following them, since I have read through the guidelines on dates, and they say that dates such as the ones that I have changed in several articles about people from the 10th century, and one that was as far as in the 18th century are supposed to not contain an AD or a CE. These changes were made to match Wikipedia's manual of style. NDV135 (talk) 07:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)NDV135[reply]

And you are absolutely correct. If in fact you do revert AD as well in such circumstances, I withdraw any complaints. But sadly I've run into too many editors who seem to think that no articles should use BCE/CE and who seem to fail to give good reasons their attempts to make or stop changes. The spirit of WP:ERA is as important as the letter. I also get tired of editors saying that the first use of an era determines all future uses - I'm not suggesting you're one of them. Doug Weller talk 08:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I get tired of people asserting that because an illegal change in the past was not spotted for a while, it now becomes valid. There's no doubt the dominant drift of all these prejudiced changes is towards BCE rather than BC. Johnbod (talk) 11:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we have reached this understanding. As you can see on my edits toMetallurgy in pre-Columbian America I didn't change the dating system in the article, and if I had had to use dates, they would have used the BCE/CE system. What I use on my own work, and what anyone uses in their own work is their own business, but here on Wikipedia I can assure you that I just wan things to match, and use the dating system that the community thinks is best, that is really the point of a collaborative project like this. BCE/CE might not be my preferred system for an essay I might be writing, but it is for many articles here, and I 100% respect that. I do also 100% understand that this preference can change. For Olmecs it did, and I should have looked harder before assuming it hadn't. NDV135 (talk) 09:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've worked this out now and I appreciate your cooperation and patience. Doug Weller talk 09:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Era Style in Akhenaten Article

Hi NDV135! Could you point me to the place where it says we should be using BC/AD over BCE/CE with dates in the Akhenaten article? I sifted through the talk page archives, but couldn't find it. Also, the Manual of Style says you can use either as long as it's consistent within the article. I apologize if that was the issue; it will probably take me a while to edit the whole article, so there were probably at least a few places where the date style has been applied inconsistently.-- Kamocsai (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kamoscai, I changed the dates on the Akenhaten article because they had originally been BC/AD since discussion on the talk page to change it from BC/AD had never happened I thought it best to change the page back to the formatting that it was originally using, which would be why you didn't see anybody deciding anything in the talk. If you wish bring up this change on the talk page, feel free. NDV135 (talk) 07:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kamocsai: if you go back say 4 years to this version, you'll see it is BC. That suggests it's been stable a while, which is how I interpret the WP:ERA guideline which says maintain existing styles. That's a bone of contention with me because there are some who say even if it was changed 10 years ago either way, without discussion you can change it's back. That's clearly not supported by the guideline but I've found it useless to argue that if enough people have decided it should be - well, my experience is that those people insist on BC. Just because I could I did a history search and found that B.C.E had been added in 2014 to an article which was otherwise all BC. So Akhenaten's article should definitely be BC. Doug Weller talk 09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Makes sense, thanks for clarifying (and hope you are staying healthy during this crazy time). -- Kamocsai (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]